________________
30
INTRODUCTION
the first proof of the present tract, I had an occasion to stay in Bombay to assist Muni Shri Dharmadhurandharavijayaji, a diligent and studious monk of the group of direct and indirect pupils of that holy sage-seer Late Ac. Vijayavallabhasūrīśvaraji, in editing and correcting the Santinathacaritra (unpublished) composed in Prakrit by Ac. Devacandrasuri (the spiritual teacher of the well-known Ac. Hemacandrasuri). That is, nearly six months after handing over the complete press-copy of this Part II to the press, when I started correcting the galley proof of the present tract, it naturally occurred to me that the tract must be a part of the Santinathacaritra. So, I scrutinized the press-copy (total pages 1397) of the Santinathacaritra, prepared by Muni Shri Dharmadhurandharavijayaji and to my great pleasure I found the tract on pages 1160-1170. I corrected some corrupt readings on the basis of this press-copy.
Muni Shri Punyavijayaji got prepared a copy of the 'Nandanamunyaradhită Aradhana' (the seventh item in the Contents) on the basis of the sub number 20 of that palm-leaf manuscript No 151. In the printed Catalogue, the title of this tract is '[Aradhana]'. I have changed it into 'Nandanamunyārādhitā Ārādhana', considering the latter to be more informative. In the foot-note on verse 5th of the tract Muni Punyavijayaji has noted variants from the Triṣaṣṭiśalakāpuruşacaritra. When the complete press-matter of this part II was sent to the press, I was under the impression that the concerned verse alone was from the Trisaṣṭiśākāpurusacaritra. On comparing the galley-proof with the Trisaṣṭiśalakāpuruşacaritra, I found that the entire tract except the last verse (40th) was from the Trisaṣṭisalakāpuruşacaritra; (see the Trisaṣṭiśalākāpuruşacaritra, published by the JainaDharma-Prasārakasabha, Bhavanagar, V.S. 1965, Sarga X, vv. 230-267). The Trisaṣṭisalākāpuruṣacaritra yields variants in verses 13, 14,16, 30 and 31 of the tract.
Muni Shri Punyavijayaji got prepared a copy of the five tracts (8th to 12th items in the Contents) on the basis of subnumbers 22, 7, 14, 8 and 9 respectively of the above-mentioned palm-leaf manuscript No. 151 in Jesalmer Bhaṇḍāra. In the printed Catalogue, titles of these five tracts are in Sanskrit.
Here I would like to demonstrate, in short, one important point to the scholars. It is: If one compares the recension of the Ārāhaṇāpaṇaga (which forms a part of the Kuvalayamālākahā) contained in pages 193-223 of the present Part with the printed Kuvalayamālākaha recension of the same, one will find that in places of corrupt readings of the printed Kuvala
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
